I watched this yesterday, 6pm showing at an art house type of place. During the film there was a strong reaction to some scenes and I assumed there were a lot women in the audience but at the end when I looked around there were only 3 men (including me) and 50-60 women. I was just wondering if other people were finding the same thing?
shareI saw it at a film festival - the place was packed and it seemed just about even men and women. The audience responded with a lot of applause and many people stood around, or remained in their seats, and watched the credits to the end. I loved the film and it still sticks in my mind - I thought it was really powerful. I also happen to be male.
sharewhen you hear people ranting about they saw it at a film festival there's your red flag
shareRed flag of what? I'm in the U.S., the film isn't scheduled to be released here until the fall, the only way I could have seen it at this point was at a festival.
Is it unmanly to go to a film festival? I hadn't thought of that. Why do you even care about this film?
Was Ricardo abused as a child or something? Holy Christ, that takes the cake for nonsensical rants.
You four-eyed psycho.
"Was Ricardo abused as a child or something? Holy Christ, that takes the cake for nonsensical rants."
Yeah, we're going to get some knuckle-dragging idiots on here. Maybe just having a film where the central character is a strong-willed, determined woman, doing something risky and challenging, is enough to send up a "red flag" for some. GUYS, you definitely shouldn't see this film - not only could watching it lead to you growing breasts, but even discussing it is probably enough to shrink your manhood.
A film like this is absolutely going to lift the rock on a whole bunch of reactionary attitudes that have been around forever, even though the film is universal, not gender focused. Robyn Davidson dealt with this b.s. when she originally wrote the article and book, and I'm sure that she and the filmmakers expected much the same reaction from the same quarters in 2014.
ok, I think I just raised some valid points, there was nothing rant-y about it.
wouldn't you agree that there are two contrasting archetypical women exist in society, one the repressed (or pretending to be) and the other is the sexually free one.
What I was thinking it is simply unfair to compare their case to black people who did absolutely nothing to get treated badly historically, whereas women actually lived and breathed together with men since the dawn of time, so from one hand historically choosing the easier way out and pretending they are nuns is spineless in my opinion, whereas I never saw a sexually free woman, who would have had high standards in her mating choices, therefore these women gave bad reputation to sexually free women in men's eyes.
If you say men forced women to pretend they are nuns, then I believe the only reason for this to happen is simply poor expectations management from the women's part. If women said to men from day one, that ok we want to sleep around too, but we won't do it with the painter or the taxi driver, only with men who have at least your status (whatever that specific man consider as status) and we will try not too many times more than you with women, then I think some kind of truce could have been reached. But seriously... can you EVER imagine a sexually free woman to hold up her end in such a truce...? Women are not constrained biologically to have limits on their optional sexual frenzy as men are, and sexually free women have no problem getting aroused by a wide array of things, such as humor, money, authority, submission, intelligence, looks, you name it, whereas men tend to get excited by a few things, like youth and looks. To achieve any kind of equal measurement and fairness in this situation, based on promises is utterly impossible.
I'm not saying any of this in a derogatory sense, just simply to raise some points and food for thought.
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
I don't see how your "points" have much to do with the film, which is subtle and definitely humanist. It sounds more like you see a movie that features a lone female challenging herself and extending her boundaries, and then immediately connect it in your mind to the feminist image/baggage that you seem to carry with you, and probably resent. Basically, women being treated, and seeing themselves as equals in society, is not an us vs them issue (though some may see it that way)- it's really about perception of worth and potential, and that is something that involves the attitudes of both men AND women. This story is an example of a young woman challenging herself, she's not battling against men, she's battling with herself and her place in the world, in a society where she feels like a complete outsider. Robyn is a lone wolf, or in this case, she-wolf. Since women are equally human as men, and equally share attributes and flaws, she is conflicted and not fully conscious of her motivations, but she has the guts to push herself onward and to reach for her dream. This is something that's difficult to do, and is more often encouraged and expected from a man, than a woman, but both sexes can take inspiration from this story. It's really not about competition, it's about being an individual.
sharei see your points, and I agree with them within the context of what biologically and THEREFORE psychologically constitutes to be a man and a woman, which are VERY different, just ask any dog breeder (to stay with your wolf analogy) and you will hear a lot of interesting and probably not too PC information which are regardless facts and not propaganda drip fed into society's collective consciousness by gender "studies".
As for what my comments have to do with anything you'd see if you read the original comment I gave my original answer to (in a couple of pages later and not before) where someone quoted John Lennon apparently saying women are the n***ers of the world or something to that effect...
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
I have to be honest with you, I think you see my points through a rather distorted lens, to the point that they have little resemblance to what I was talking about.
But that's fine, you'll read into what I write whatever you choose, just as you'll see in the film whatever you imagine.
well, as long as your points reflect reality and not some kind of imaginary meta world where mind is over biology and matter (what would be the purpose of the mind in that case anyway?) then there shouldn't be too much difference in our ways of seeing things
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
well, as long as your points reflect reality and not some kind of imaginary meta world where mind is over biology and matter
talk about smothering the tangent with the on topic...
that is not something you see every day :D
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
I'm not sure what you mean by your comment, can you elaborate?
sharebecause a guy mentioned that quote, we were talking about whether women are the new n**ers, (tangent), then you had nothing to say about it anymore, but you wanted to look like someone who has a lot to say, you presented a totally irrelevant tirade about the film (which is actually on topic in the sense that this board belong to that film), therefore you smothered the tangent with the on topic. A rare occasion, as normally people do the opposite.
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
You're still not very clear. You were talking about dog breeders and there basically being two kinds of women - something relevant like that. I guess you got quite a lot out of this film.
sharefor the last time, i didn't even see this movie. I answered to a guy, who mentioned a quote. I wrote my comments in regards to this quote and to this quote only.
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
Discussing female sexuality where it was never brought up or questioned is completely irrelevant. Was it truly necessary to shoe-horn your own deranged perception of female sexuality into what, in your own words, was a comment about women being the n-words of the world?
You seem only able to define women based on their relationship to men, how can we take you seriously when that is the pillar of your argument?
You rob us of identity when you try to shoe-horn an entire gender into your pathetic logic.
"you seem only able to define women based on their relationship to men"
Well you can only be as much of a woman as much men think you are one. Just as much something is as sweet as people taste it sweet or something could be only as lethal as easily people die because of it. Logically there is no other possible definition of women as it is related to men. Apart from that you can only be like a "generic human" or a standard mold of a genderless human.
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
chick lit--->chick flick. The only time a guy's "journey of self-discovery" is interesting is when he gets eaten by a bear
shareOkay, if a female is the central character in a book/film that makes it "chick lit" or a "chick flick". Got it. It's really so simple isn't it. Does that apply when it's based on an actual true happening? Probably even more so, right? It's really quite simple isn't it. I didn't realize that when I saw "Into the Wild" or "Cast Away" that it was a guy flick. Somehow I didn't think of it that way - I wonder if all the "chicks" who saw those films did. I doubt it.
shareIt's really sad that a lot of guys probably won't check out this movie. It concerns a young woman but could have just as easily been a young man. The brutality of what she experienced in childhood is also not gender specific - it wasn't sexual. It makes me think of what john Lennon said about woman being the n***** of the world.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli...
it takes real talent (apparently...) to be proudly slutty yet remain graceful and sticking to up to par standards in your mating choices. that is why women rather have men believe they are nuns and invest zero effort into expectations management or actually have a spine. at the end of the day women (like all people) want to keep their cakes and eat it too with in the meantime as little energy spent as possible. therefore laziness as always wins on the long run, so in generic terms, like all people, when they have a problem that lasts decades or centuries, more often than not, they can thank to themselves
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
Yea, because Into The Wild was a total bomb right? I'm sure the ladies just flock to schmuck like you.
shareThe only time a guy's "journey of self-discovery" is interesting is when he gets eaten by a bear
So anything that doesn't cater largely for men has to be given a name to warn all men that they need not be interested. Funny because you never found women referring to thinks as dick lit or dick flick.
Yeah but if a guy walks to the other side of town someone will make a movie about his journey of self-discovery.
Not sure this was self-discovery. It was something this woman decided to do and the media hitched it's own camel to her train.
I am male and I think the film portrayed cruelty to animals. there was no excuse to subject animals to that (at the time, I don't maean the film)
share[deleted]
Perhaps not after a film featuring castration - I was feeling a little vulnerable.
share